not if the only thing you want to do is take decent pics of your pets......

In her post above she said

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lizmo

I definitely want a camera that is going to let me go far and exspand my knowledge/skills for taking good quality pictures. I'm really liking photography and want to take it as far as possible - or the next level.

This shows interest in more than just pictures of pets.

And the lens I want is actually a really great lens for that because you can get the zoom but you can get more shallow depth of field. Most people use it for portraits.

If you can just buy the basic stuff and be happy with that, thats great. But if your really into photography, your gonna want to move up and get more and better equip. But it's just a warning to those who are interested in photography so they aren't surprised later down the road if they decide they want more equip.

I think it can be expensive but you are really only limited by your creativity and rarely by your gear. Depending on what you want to do you can get away with very limited equipment.

My photojournalism teacher told us of how she went to a pro-football game for the first time. she was just starting out and had a little point 'n shoot. All the other photographers were there with their long lenses and fancy gear and she didn't think she'd get anything usable but then she shot some action framed by the coaches legs and her shot was the best that any paper ran!

I've had at least 200 photos published and the most gear I ever carried was a flash, camera body, and two lenses. Both basic zooms.

I like my D40 so far. I haven't gotten to use it much due to the weather here, but what I have snapped so far I LOVE. I think the real test for me will be when the weather breaks and we are outdoors more.

I am a TOTAL amateur and this is really my first manual camera to learn anything. I have always had P&S cameras.

I think if you are already comfortable with setting shutter speed, understand lighting a little more, and want to go farther with your camera then go for the more expensive D80. I really feel the D40 will do me for a few years or more as I am learning.

I think it can be expensive but you are really only limited by your creativity and rarely by your gear. Depending on what you want to do you can get away with very limited equipment.

My photojournalism teacher told us of how she went to a pro-football game for the first time. she was just starting out and had a little point 'n shoot. All the other photographers were there with their long lenses and fancy gear and she didn't think she'd get anything usable but then she shot some action framed by the coaches legs and her shot was the best that any paper ran!

I've had at least 200 photos published and the most gear I ever carried was a flash, camera body, and two lenses. Both basic zooms.

I shot this on tuesday with a basic zoom and the d40. No flash.

Photojournalism though is quite a bit different. Just cuz a picture ran in the paper doesn't impress me. Most pictures in newspapers aren't all that impressive, and they dont have to be. They want the moment, they dont care as much about lighting and stuff. Even some magazines are that way.

But newspapers aren't printed for pictures. And a lot of them are just going with P&S that the journalists carry instead of hiring professional photographers these days.

Im not saying you HAVE to have the gear. And you certainly won't need it for EVERY shot. But it just depends what you want to do with it.

Photojournalism though is quite a bit different. Just cuz a picture ran in the paper doesn't impress me. Most pictures in newspapers aren't all that impressive, and they dont have to be. They want the moment, they dont care as much about lighting and stuff. Even some magazines are that way.

But newspapers aren't printed for pictures. And a lot of them are just going with P&S that the journalists carry instead of hiring professional photographers these days.

Im not saying you HAVE to have the gear. And you certainly won't need it for EVERY shot. But it just depends what you want to do with it.

Actually, you are quite off base. Most journalists study photography these days. I did. In a darkroom. We learned from scratch and developed our own film and prints before moving into photoshop. Shooting in the moment does limit you but it also challenges you. Many photographers can't do that and have to carefully set photos up. Some of the photos that photojournalists get are amazing simply because of the conditions they had to shoot in.

It is definitely a different kind of photography. And you do have to consider the calibre of publication being discussed. Some are smaller/newer publications on a limited budget. The last one I worked at had two DSLR cameras plus assorted lenses. As well as several film cameras available to us. I don't know of any that used a p&s unless they were just getting started and didn't care.

Of course, if we are considering the publication then your statement really is inaccurate. *Most* daily papers have their own pro photographers completely with in-house studios that they use for portraits, etc. Where do you think the food photos come from when they are getting critiqued for a paper?

And you absolutely can not believe that photography isn't what is important in a publication. Photography is what makes people pick up newspapers. A good photo pulls people in more then a catchy headline ever did.

I am much more impressed with someone who can pull of an awesome shot of minor league hockey from over the glass in a dimly lit arena then with someone who takes hours to set up a shoot and gets only the usual family portraits.

And even if I hadn't brought photojournalism into it, it's still true that you don't need to spend thousands of dollars on gear. Your best asset is your creativity. Knowing when to get good light. Look up "chasing the light" those photographers don't need much gear at all. They need patience and a good eye. A decent camera body and handful of lenses help. A couple of my favourite pictures that i have taken I took with a p & s.

The point is. The d40 is a great camera. Everything else can come later.

This single statement clearly shows that you two are talking about completely different things. I was just telling Kalee that if I saw this:

...on the front page of a newspaper, I'd bring it home. Not because the picture is good. That picture is horrible. The lighting is terrible. The depth and focus are both unflattering. The color is off, as well. On top of that, you'll be losing another 25% of the quality putting it on newspaper. I know what a Smokin' Joe CBR is. I know who Duhamel is. I'll be bringing it home because it's interesting. Not because it's good.

Good photography has NEVER sold a newspaper. Interesting photography sells newspapers. And bold headlines have sold more newspapers than any kind of photography ever has.

I'll mention, though, that I do somewhat agree with one of your statements: you don't have to spend thousands of dollars to get an interesting picture. On the other hand, you don't see wedding photographers show up with a coolpix and those guys down on the 50yd line getting the high dollar, on the fly action shots aren't doing it with $8 disposable polaroids. Equipment is not a direct reflection of skill or ability, but your ability will be defined by the limitations of your equipment and you'll never be able to escape that fact.

__________________
"Quotation marks" and "ellipses" are my..."favorite"...forms of "punctuation"...deal with it.

First of all. I don't believe photo"Journalists" should really be using much photoshop. As it is journalism and altering the picture makes it not "real or unbiased"

I believe that pictures are what makes people pick up most publications. Although it doesn't have to be a *great* picture, just of a topic that interests people. Although most newspaper readers, read the newspaper no matter what picture is on it. Most people are more likely to pick up a magazine with a pretty picture. Newspapers are more likely read by subscribers.

And as I said previously you don't HAVE to have the gear, but if you are really into photography and depending "What kind" you may eventually end up with a lot of money invested.

I have a $1000 camera w/kit zoom lens
a $300 telephoto zoom lens
a $160 used light meter
a $100 camera backpack
a $200 used off camera flash
about $1500 of studio equip and that is just with 2 AB 800s and softbox, umbrellas stands, etc.
another $1000 of backdrop stuff

Now of course that is because I do want to do "studio" photography and you can't do that kind of photography without the equipment which is pretty expensive.

Not to mention I don't even know how much money I spent last semester buying Velvia 100 slide film and having it processed and getting prints. And I have $150 used Nikon film camera with a lens for it.

I want to buy a $1600 lens, I need to buy a new camera, so that I can have my D70 as a back up. Not too mention the other studio equip. Although I understand not everyone wants a studio. But if you like taking pictures of people, or products, and such then you may want one and the stuff is expensive.

But I was taught by "photographers" not photojournalists. I took a documentary/photojournalism class and I admit that is not what interests me. I much prefer landscape/nature/people photography.

And I am MUCH more critical than just about anyone when it comes to pictures. I took a class where it didn't matter how proud you were of the photo, when it came time to show in class, the teacher would always have a "however....such and such would make this a much better photo." And he was the state photographer of Texas. And I took classes from art photographers (one of which actually had worked in just about every kind of photography there is), and they are probably the most critical of any photographer. So I imagine it might be quite a bit different than having a photojournalist program.

I am sorry, it is just frustrating when every person who owns a P&S camera thinks they can be a professional. Even getting an SLR will not make you a photographer. And some people think the camera is what will make you a photographer. I know my mom didn't like to tell people my degree was in photography, because it sounds like such a blow off major. But I worked my butt off and it is a lot more difficult than it seems. Its not about pointing and clicking a button. It is about soo much more.

I never said it was expensive right off the bat. And I never said the D40 isnt a great camera. I think it is a great camera to start with. I just thought I would point out that if you get really into it, then you will usually start to want more, and all that money adds up.